Wednesday, February 22, 2006

My very first veto

Ah, the spectacle of yet another Bush administration debacle in the making. Such a shame...

So I have two theories on the genesis of the Bush veto in this Dubai port takeover mess.

The first is, quite simply, that someone let W loose on Air Force One without properly thinking things through. (If there is a culprit there, I'm guessing it'd be Dan Bartlett, quoted in many of the press reports yesterday.)

You see, during W's lecture to the the press corps while in flight on matters of racial corporate profiling, the Demander-in-Chief took things a step too far. W needed to justify the administration decision, already made prior to his knowledge (there's a surprise) and proceeded to do so. His bulliness kicked in, however, and he managed to threaten his own party leaders and for good measure, threw in the veto threat. In this version of events, the veto threat disaster is an example of what happens when W is left to his own devices. Anyone remember Harriet Miers? It used to be that letting "Bush be Bush," uttered with such pride by the likes of Peggy Noonan and other assorted Repub collaborators, was the fountain of political bounty. It is now an idea that evokes much trepidation...

So how can we be sure it was W who brainstormed the veto idea all on his lonesome? Well, we can't know for sure, but let's see...what we've got on our hands now is a universally condemned decision to let these ports be controlled by a Dubai company. Is ass enough to make such a massive miscalculation? Would he really advise threatening a veto on an issue like handing over ports to a Dubai company? Walking political thermometer that he is? It's hard to believe. My bet is that there is only one person who has demonstrated the capacity for such political buffoonery. And it ain't Karl, my friends, it's W.

The second theory is that, well, yes, it actually is Karl's strategy. Simply put, this theory holds that the asinine-veto is the opening salvo of a George Costanza-inspired "do the opposite" type deal intended to oust W from the all-time basement of presidential approval ratings. Expect me to nuke the deal on national security concerns? Nah, I'm going to try to play the nuanced statesman here and actually threaten a veto on an issue that most consider to be a slam dunk loser. If every instinct I have is wrong, then doing the opposite must be right, right? I can't go any further into the political basement, so what the heck?

Impolitical theorizes, you decide...