Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
On occasion the issue of diplomacy comes up. Normally it is the context of Bush imposing US will on the international scence and the impact it has on US international reputation. The general feeling among many is that if Bush sat down and talked, conflict could be avoided.
Here is a situation were I imagine the leaders in Congress already know that Bush will veto the Restore Act. Since these same leaders criticize Bush for his unwillingness to sit down and negotiate using diplomacy, why aren't they willing to sit down with Bush and negotiate a bill that will pass and a bill that he will sign?
I know one of the first responses to my question would be that Bush is adversarial, unwilling to compromise, etc, etc, but isn't that what diplomacy is all about. Being able to sit down with an adversary and then reach consensus?
These questions strike me because of Bush's infrequent us of his veto authority at a time when he may veto this bill and he veto'd the Child Heath Insurance bill last week. Harry Reid described it as a "heartless" veto, when he knew the bill would be veto'd and Bush said what he would be willing to sign. Now we have the Restore Act, where we have some critical components not in question and could pass and be signed.
My gut tells me that it makes better press to have Bush vetoing bills rather than working out the details ahead of time and getting the job done.
|
i don’t think the record has shown that attempts to negotiate with the adminsitration bear much fruit. they seem to pretty much have their position and will not compromise. look at the iraq war funding bills -- the demos keep attaching riders to the bills, they negotiate with republicans in congress and come up with a compromise bill that passes congress, and then bush says “give me something i can sign! give me a ‘clean’ bill that funds the troops!” although the bill DOES fund the troops, it just has common-sense provisions, say, asking the administration to provide progress reports to congress or come up with some kind of reasonable drawdown plan. but no, if it doesn’t adhere to the administration’s position, it isn’t a “clean” bill and he vetoes it.
i’m a little disappointed that the demos have stooped to making the bill’s acronym spell out some propagandistic, orwellian acronym. it’s not any funnier now than it was when the repubs came up with the “PATRIOT” act. it’s the sort of thing that makes the government look like they look down on us like ignorant children.