Unspinning the Bush Veto Spin


-- Download Unspinning the Bush Veto Spin as PDF --


Not that Bush needs to veto much. He simply issues signing statements indicating the executive branch will not abide by this or that of the legislation he’s signing. Soft Fascism ‘R Us.

But now the folks at the radically right Media Research Center have spun coverage of this nasty veto thusly:

Again exploiting children and mothers to advance the goal of expanding federal spending and dependency, ABC’s World News led Wednesday night by giving voice to the media-political establishment’s astonishment that President Bush would veto a bill to provide health insurance “for children.”

It’s hard to reply to this other than to say that the very first clause has simply been spun backwards. Poor children cannot depend on private insurers, so they depend on the government to keep them from illness and death. Bastards, eh!

And black is white, war is peace…

So after 4 decades of socialized medicine in Canada, it turns out that all progressives do is look for excuses to increase government budgets, not the other way around.

The following two tabs change content below.

Stephen Elliott-Buckley

Post-partisan eco-socialist. at Politics, Re-Spun
Stephen Elliott-Buckley is a husband, father, professor, speaker, consultant, former suburban Vancouver high school English and Social Studies teacher who changed careers because the BC Liberal Party has been working hard to ruin public education. He has various English and Political Science degrees and has been writing political, social and economic editorials since November 2002. Stephen is in Twitter, Miro and iTunes, and the email thing, and at his website, dgiVista.org.

Latest posts by Stephen Elliott-Buckley (see all)

4 thoughts on “Unspinning the Bush Veto Spin”

  1. Wow.

    “the goal of expanding federal spending and dependency”.

    You’re right. This is so far out, in the territory of “black is white” and “war is peace”, that it’s frightening to see these MRC guys as serious.

    I suppose the equivalent thing in reverse, from a far-out leftie, would be to accuse those on the right of having a “goal of making children die”.

    But I’ve never seen anyone say that. When I do, then maybe I’ll start to consider the possibility that there’s a left-wing bias in the media.

  2. making children die. that about covers it.

    it’s impossible to avoid that conclusion when you read naomi klein’s new book.

    get stinking rich by letting children die, among other things.

  3. The emphasis, of course, is on “getting stinking rich”. All the deaths are mere collateral damage, not the goal.

    That doesn’t make the capitalists less evil, but it does make them less monstrous. There is a difference.

  4. truth. there is a difference.

    unfortunately for them, both categories are beyond the line of tolerability and socially acceptable.

Leave a Reply to Daniel Peters Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.