They are majority Republican like Bush so he vetoed it. Why did they pass it but he didn't?
2006-09-16 14:52:24 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There were a few reasons:
1. Bush needed to veto something. He is the only president in USA history to not have vetoed any legislation until this one.
2. It was a clash between what the majority of constituents want and Bush's religious base. Constituents in the end are suppose to control their representatives. For the first time in 6 years, this republican congress finally listened to them.
3. Election year politics to motivate the religious base.
2006-09-16 17:13:10 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush does not care for anyone who might benefit from this type of research. Besides he gets a big kick out of acting like God. I think he is getting the idea he is God.
He does believe he is above the rules of the Constitution, claiming it is just a piece of paper. He's trying to change the rules (midstream) of the Geneva Convention to protect his sorry a**. He blatantly refused the UN recommendations about the invasion of Iraq.
Sounds to me like he is on a 'power' high. He obviously never got to the reading level required to be able to fully understand the meaning of the nusery rhyme Humpty-Dumpty. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, and all the king's horses (Karl Rove), and all the king's men (Cheney and company) couldn't put Humpty (Dubya) together again.
Further, Congress, had to look like they care, so they passed the bill, knowing full well it would be rejected by Bush. Appearing to the voters, that they are working on some tough issues, this is an election year. Look for more of this in the next couple months.
2006-09-16 17:53:04 · answer #2 · answered by Schona 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because unlike Bush, the republican representatives don't want the stem cells thrown in the garbage.
2006-09-16 15:40:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
because Congress thought of the millions that could've benefited from it. Bush only thought of the fetuses that were already out of the mother. I don't understand why either, I mean, you might as well get some use out of them.
2006-09-16 15:06:43 · answer #4 · answered by Rockin25 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He is further right than the average republican.
2006-09-16 14:55:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He knows there is no money in the budget for it. If it would be profitable, the private sector will fund it!
2006-09-16 14:58:54 · answer #6 · answered by Bawney 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋