Not enough to override a veto

Sixty three votes is great, but it won’t be enough to reverse Bush.

The Senate voted Tuesday after two days of emotional debate to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and sent the measure to President Bush for a promised veto, the first of his presidency.

The bill passed 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Bush’s veto. The president left little doubt he would reject the bill despite late appeals on its behalf from fellow Republicans Nancy Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“The simple answer is he thinks murder’s wrong,” said White House spokesman Tony Snow. “The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research.”

I wish I could convey how annoying this rhetorical nonsense has become. As Michael Kinsley explained quite well not too long ago, “Stem-cell research does not cause the creation or destruction of a single additional embryo. It uses embryos that are routinely discarded as part of IVF. Once a stem-cell line is created, it can be reproduced in the laboratory and requires no embryos at all. So Bush’s ban on federally funded stem-cell research involving embryos destroyed after Aug. 9 [2001] will not directly save any embryo’s life. His rationale is that allowing such research implies federal government approval of the creation and destruction of embryos, and thus may encourage it indirectly. Meanwhile, the government encourages and even subsidizes IVF directly, Bush praises it, and has done nothing to stop it.”

Snow’s “murder” comment should be repeated, ad nauseam, through the election cycle. As rhetoric goes, this is a special kind of stupid.

As for veto override, it was always a long shot. We didn’t have the votes in the House and getting 67 members of this Senate to agree on any policy issue is pretty tough, especially in the face of a veto threat. Of course, next year, if there’s a Dem Senate….

Tony Snowjob says: ” “The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research.”

Nope, Dear Leader doesn’t kill anything for the sake of science and helping people with dread disease. On the other hand, 3,000 Iraqi’s died violently in June, says the UN. Making living things dead is fine if it’s for world domination and oil.

  • Does anyone really believe that our dear leader is capable of understanding that stem cell research uses “embryos that are routinely discarded as part of IVF” and so on? I don’t think so.
    His threat to veto the bill is simply a political choice. It has nothing to do with life or death issues.

  • A colleague of mine told me just this week that he and his wife destroyed their batch of embryos, having decided not to have any more children after several very difficult pregnancies.

    I’ll have to ask him how it feels to know that his president (he’s an ardent Bush supporter) believes he just murdered his own children.

    Wouldn’t it be nice to start touting how many embryos are “murdered” every year after fertility treatments? Hmmm…. maybe Bush could shut down fertility clinics. That’s a real vote-getter.

  • Semper, let’s take it one step further (Bush loves to go one step further!). The Decider could decidee that embryos cannot be destroyed at the biological parents but must be implanted in heterosexual, married, Christian women. If they don’t volunteer, they could be conscripted.

  • So now let’s see if the Groper-In-Chief really has the balls to veto the thing.

    Odds are that he’ll chicken out…..again.

    By the way, Frak, you hit on a great campaign slogan:

    “Making living things dead is ok as long as they’re Iraqi.”

  • Semper, let’s take it one step further (Bush loves to go one step further!). The Decider could decidee that embryos cannot be destroyed at the biological parents but must be implanted in heterosexual, married, Christian women. If they don’t volunteer, they could be conscripted.
    Comment by Frak

    Wouldn’t be all that different from the program that the other Our Leader had, during WWII, to improve the German race…

  • What I don’t understand is why this congress would bring this anti-base issue to vote when they are on this roll of issues sucking up to the base.

  • This was all a ploy thought up and brought up by Karl Rasputin Rove and Pencil Dick Cheney. Cheney in his daily lunches with the Republiskunk leadership assured the Republiskunks that Shrub will veto this. This allows the Republiskunks to vote opposing the president for once in order to appear in a better light for the election. They don’t care about people that need scientific research in order to improve their lives from disabilities and injuries. Very few people in that position vote. They don’t matter to this administration and least of all in an election year.

  • This has been a political ploy. There NEVER would have been enough votes to override the veto …. this is one right out of the Rove “play” book.

  • 1. Is Bush really this stupid?
    2. Are members of Congress really this stupid?
    3. Are the voters they’re apparently pandering to really this stupid?
    4. Can stem cell research be used to cure stupidity?

  • What the dems should do in this election cycle is take President Bush’s comments to their logical conclusion. He thinks that destroying embryos is murder. From what I understand, most IVF treatments involve the destruction of some embryos. Therefore, President Bush must believe that those couples who have conceived through IVF and not used all of the embryos are in some way involved in murder.

    Come on people…they would do it to us…let’s give them a dose of their own medicine. Let’s get couples who have used IVF to tell their stories and say how horrified they are that the president thinks they are murderers when all they want is to create a life.

  • What’s ironic is…they can mischaracterize the issue thus, but no one can actually nail the issue re: Iraq, etc. and call war crimes, war crimes…

    If we characterized Iraq as mendacious as they do this issue we’d be saying “regarding Iraq, we just think genocide is wrong.”

  • Would the DNA in those cells think they are more dead in perpetual culture than in the waste bin? I’d guess they would vote to be murdered than subjected to the dust heap.

    Funny the mind prisons of the god people.

  • If discarding an embryo is supposedly “murder” in the eyes of the President, then I’d really like to know why he’s not pressing for the prosecution of individuals that have been discarding embryos for years? Perhaps because the law doesn’t actually consider that act as murder?

    I do have to give the President a little bit of credit though, as he’s making this more of a moral stance rather than citing the bad science of nuts like David Prentice.

  • “If discarding an embryo is supposedly “murder” in the eyes of the President, then I’d really like to know why he’s not pressing for the prosecution of individuals that have been discarding embryos for years?” – TL

    Why is this hard to understand?

    What a couple of parents decide to do with their unwanted embryos sends them to hell.

    What Boy George II does with Federal Funding might send him to hell.

    And that’s how he make the distinction.

  • ‘The simple answer is he thinks murder’s wrong,’ said White House spokesman Tony Snow.

    Does anyone else find this statement completely ironic considering that Governor Bush presided over 152 death penalty executions, more than any other governor in U.S. history? I would have loved to see someone, anyone in the White House Press Corps with enough of a spine to argue this issue with Tony.

  • ***”The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research.”***

    So…politics is considered a science. Cramming western democracy down the Middle East’s collective throats (Iraq, for example) could be considered a political experiment, thus a scientific experiment. Now, if what the US is doing in Iraq can be defined as a “scientific experiment,” then just how does the Doofus-in-Chief explain all of these “living things” (US troops, for example) being made “dead” for his Iraqi Experiment?

    Or are all those flag-draped coffins empty?

  • Comments are closed.