Bush opposes something that he took credit for after having opposed it

One of the main arguments of pro-George W. Bush people is that the president is a decisive leader with a clear vision. Love him or hate, supporters of the president say, at least you know what you're getting with Bush. Publius, over at Legal Fiction, offers one of many examples that give lie to that argument.

Let's see . . . first, Bush opposed the Texas law that allowed patients to sue HMOs in state court:


Bush initially vetoed the bill in 1995, then let it become law without his signature two years later, saying, "This legislation has the potential to drive up health care costs and increase the number of lawsuits. I hope my concerns are proven wrong."*

Next, he took credit for that bill in a debate with Gore in October 2000:


"If I'm president," Bush said, "people will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court. That's what I've done in Texas, and that's the kind of leadership style I'll bring to Washington."*

Finally, Bush filed a brief opposing this same law that he took credit for during his campaign. This law was overturned yesterday by the Supreme Court, which means that Bush's position won:


At the Supreme Court, the Bush administration filed a brief arguing that allowing state lawsuits would undermine ERISA, and that the benefits to patients are outweighed by costs to managed-care companies -- which, passed on to employers, "could make employers less willing to provide health benefits."*

Now Bush and the Court might both be right on the merits. But the real question is honesty.


[*-links to excerpted work are provided at his site]