Skip

Pres. Bush: Defender of democracy.
August 16, 2005 9:24 AM   Subscribe

President Bush defends democratic values and upholds our majoritarian principles by choosing not to exercise the veto power.
posted by monju_bosatsu (25 comments total)

 
Vetos are a hinderence to progress.
posted by Balisong at 9:25 AM on August 16, 2005


Vetos are unecessary if you twist everyone's arms thoroughly to ensure you dont see any bills you don't like. I'll bet Putin never has to veto anything either.
posted by Red58 at 9:27 AM on August 16, 2005


It's a damn good thing, too. If that bastard vetoed the highway bill, we'd all be fucked!
posted by Kwantsar at 9:29 AM on August 16, 2005


When the executive branch either guides the legislative branch or ignores it outright, let alone the judicial branch, what use is a veto?
posted by Rothko at 9:30 AM on August 16, 2005


Gee, the Republicans control both the house and the Senate, and the Republican president hasn't had to use the veto? Wow, he is a great man....
posted by Elpoca at 9:34 AM on August 16, 2005


I'm not sure that arm-twisting=collegiality. If we were so close to parlimentary I think the Repub party representatives would have more sway over Bush than the other way around.
posted by OmieWise at 9:35 AM on August 16, 2005


Oops, I also meant to say that it will truly be a high water mark for American progress if easing the stem cell restrictions gets the veto.
posted by OmieWise at 9:36 AM on August 16, 2005


the Republicans control both the house and the Senate, and the Republican president hasn't had to use the veto? Wow, he is a great man...

indeedy. that's a master politico.
posted by matteo at 9:41 AM on August 16, 2005


Vetos are unecessary if you twist everyone's arms thoroughly to ensure you dont see any bills you don't like.

Not quite. Vetoes are unnecessary if you are willing to give everyone everything they want in exchange for them giving you everything you want.
posted by three blind mice at 9:42 AM on August 16, 2005


Gee, the Republicans control both the house and the Senate, and the Republican president hasn't had to use the veto? Wow, he is a great man....

Except I don't recall any editorials in the last five years about Bush's amazing track record of getting anything he wants. Or the beauty of compromise to avoid showdown in Congress.

I have, however, for some strange reason, seen countless articles about "obstructionist Democrats" which seems quite odd considering that they have about the same percentage of success in stopping their opponent as Wile E. Coyote.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:48 AM on August 16, 2005


A republican president presides over a Congress that is paralyzingly afraid to do or say anything that is critical of the president. Wow, no vetoes? I am shocked, simply shocked.
posted by fleener at 9:58 AM on August 16, 2005


Wow, now if only Bush was a hot chick instead of the president then not saying would be laudable. As it is, the guy's a rubber stamp seeking validation for what a great guy he is. And he likes money alot. And oil. And days off. But he doesn't like uppity grieving mothers, nosirreebob.

This would be far more interesting if the article title was "Bush Twins make history - a five-year streak without saying 'no'".
posted by fenriq at 9:58 AM on August 16, 2005


XQUZYPHYR, your "obstructionist democrats" observation is merely republican strategy. The more they get what they want, the more they complain about being victimized.
posted by fleener at 10:00 AM on August 16, 2005


The article itself explains the lack of vetos:
"There is unusual coherence between Republicans in Congress and the president," Professor Mackenzie adds. "So there's very little getting to his desk that hasn't been pre-approved by the Republican leadership."
posted by Outlawyr at 10:05 AM on August 16, 2005


I think this article indirectly points to how powerful the Republican machine has become in the past decade. Take a look at these two links. Yes, of course it's common knowledge that the Democrats controlled Congress for nearly consecutive years, starting in the late 50's. But then take a look at the number of vetoes by Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter.

Despite the obvious Bush-bashing, this is quite an amazing accomplishment, worthy of "praise".
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:55 AM on August 16, 2005


for nearly 30 consecutive years,
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:04 AM on August 16, 2005


I have, however, for some strange reason, seen countless articles about "obstructionist Democrats"

Damn liberal media!
Now if they can only get racists and haters on all the "news" shows regularly. What's that? They already do?
posted by nofundy at 11:19 AM on August 16, 2005


Well, he's threatened to veto stem cell research and standards for treatment of prisoners.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:35 AM on August 16, 2005


Not quite. Vetoes are unnecessary if you are willing to give everyone everything they want pork in exchange for them giving you everything you want OBEY.

I agreed with your comment completely, I just prefer this phrasing.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 12:03 PM on August 16, 2005


This Dubya and veto talk reminds of a joke:

A Brahmin and a Rajput share the same compartment in a train. Early in the morning the Brahmin chants a loud mantra, which angers a Rajput who is trying to continue sleeping. He asks the Brahmin,
"Hey, Pandoo [ slang for Pandit ], why do you keep shouting ?"
"It keeps elephants away," replied the Brahmin.
"But there are no elephants here for thosands of miles. Besides, no elephant could ever get into this train," said the Rajput.
"See how effective it is."
posted by nofundy at 12:06 PM on August 16, 2005


Bush runs such tight ship, no Republican can vote against him. Bush does shy away from a fight when it might make him look bad.

I expect this will change if Bush's popularity sinks any further, or if (when) the Democrats increase their numbers in 2006. This is not a man who is shy about throwing his weight around.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 3:18 PM on August 16, 2005


But then take a look at the number of vetoes by Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter.

That era featured the boll-weevil democrat, and the scoop jackson democrat; now republicans.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:27 PM on August 16, 2005


A uniter, not a divider.
posted by rxreed at 6:39 PM on August 16, 2005


Would finding redistricting unconstitutional solve this problem?
posted by VulcanMike at 9:21 PM on August 16, 2005


I don't necessarily think it's because he runs a tight ship. It's because he spends like a crack whore with a credit card.
posted by fungible at 9:24 PM on August 16, 2005


« Older violent night   |   A Wild Perfection: The... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post