Bush and the Veto

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7th Ninjai

I wasn't referring to this particular bill but rather the general statement from joe cool. When Republicans passed spending bills fit for the likes of Democrats, the President went along with it. That's pathetic.

Exactly, that's the entire point I'm trying to make. I was responding to Joe's comment, not the specifics of this bill.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

How does that work?

You really think this has any political benefit for Bush?

Is it just possible he did the right thing when members of both parties in the congress are doing the wrong thing?

It might have been the right decision, but it was done for the wrong reasons, and he has not been AT ALL consistent in his Presidency with giving a shit about fiscal responsibility.

I think he gains by using this as a way to frame Democrats as spending too much while trying to make it seem like he's somehow a fiscally conservative President when nothing could be further from the truth.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's a catch-22 for Bush. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Either way he can't win.

And that's his fault for failing to have any consistency in his use of the veto throughout his Presidency or making fiscal responsibility an issue he cared about.

It makes him look like a huge hypocrite to start spouting the "fiscally conservative" mantra of "it costs too much" this late in his Presidency while failing to do so for the previous 6 years..

Maybe if he had made a statement where he admitted his past mistakes in approving bills that were also excessive it wouldn't look that way, but he's not the type of person to have public mea culpa's whenever possible.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't even see the relevance to be honest. He didn't veto this bill because of the premise of the bill itself. He vetoed it because it was wasteful spending. Saying he vetoed this bill because he doesn't want to sign off on Democrat pork doesn't seem to have any merit. That would then mean that the Democrats didn't have just as much pork in bills when they were the minority. They too were earmarking like drunken sailors and Bush signed off on them as well. This water bill is a bipartisan bill stuffed with pork from both parties. He didn't veto it because he hates the Democrats.

I'm not saying this had anything to do with it being passed by democrats. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in the criticism by motivez and others.

It's ridiculous to bitch about spending for seven years, then all of a sudden when Bush vetoes a spending bill, criticize him for doing it. If Hillary Clinton voted to repeal all gun control laws in the US, I'd her for doing it. I wouldn't try to find a way to make it look bad. Which is what these guys are doing.

You don't like needless spending? Then be glad when Bush vetoes it. Don't try to spin it as a bad thing just because you have an irrational hatred for Bush.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by motivez

And that's his fault for failing to have any consistency in his use of the veto throughout his Presidency or making fiscal responsibility an issue he cared about.

It makes him look like a huge hypocrite to start spouting the "fiscally conservative" mantra of "it costs too much" this late in his Presidency while failing to do so for the previous 6 years..

Maybe if he had made a statement where he admitted his past mistakes in approving bills that were also excessive it wouldn't look that way, but he's not the type of person to have public mea culpa's whenever possible.

Or maybe he just thought this particular bill was stupid and wasteful.